Taylor v. Pierce Bros.

• Decision Date: 29 October 1914
• Citation: 106 N.E. 565,219 Mass. 187
• Parties: TAYLOR et al. v. PIERCE BROS., Limited.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

219 Mass. 187

106 N.E. 565

TAYLOR et al. v. PIERCE BROS., Limited.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

October 29, 1914

COUNSEL

C. R. Cummings and J. W. Cummings, both of Fall River, for plaintiff.

A. J. Jennings and I. Brayton, both of Fall River, for defendants.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion that the defendant's exceptions, because of their length and form, be disposed of by ordering judgment for the plaintiffs on the verdict. The exceptions are obnoxious to the rule stated in Cornell-Andrews Smelting Co. v. Boston & Providence R. R., 215 Mass. 381, 387, 102 N.E. 625, and reiterated with emphasis in Isenbeck v. Burroughs, 217 Mass. 537, 105 N.E. 595, Romana v. Boston Elevated Ry., 218 Mass. 76, 81, 105 N.E. 598, and Corsick v. Boston Elevated Ry., 218 Mass. 145, 105 N.E. 600. Much of the evidence is set forth by question and answer, which should have been abbreviated and put in narrative form. Thus the points of law at issue could have been presented more intelligently and concisely, the rights of the parties better protected and the expense of the litigation been reduced. This record, however, is not so unjustifiably voluminous as in the cases cited. It is the first instance where motion has been made for drastic dealing with exceptions drawn contrary to this principal. The practice by counsel in drafting exceptions, and by judges in allowing them, hardly could have been expected to have become fully adjusted to it when these exceptions were filed. Hence the motion is granted only in part.

Let the entry be:

Exceptions dismissed without prejudice to the defendant to apply, within 20 days from the entry of this rescript, for leave to amend its exceptions. If no such application is made, judgment on the verdict.